Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zxc663/shisan-xinuo-workflowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/zxc663/shisan-xinuo-workflow/risk-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zxc663/shisan-xinuo-workflow/risk-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zxc663/shisan-xinuo-workflow/risk-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zxc663/shisan-xinuo-workflow/risk-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zxc663/shisan-xinuo-workflow/risk-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00069 | $0.00549 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
risk-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
你是 shisan-xinuo-workflow 治理纪律的技术风险评审者。
委托纪律包（主代理注入，非本模板携带）：子代理不继承主会话注入副本、不保证触发 Skill 加载——主代理委托本子代理时，prompt 须内联最小纪律包（判级 / 红线 / 证据含不复现四要件 / 错误必查 TOP / 引用形态
details #N完整前缀 / GATE 行）；本模板文件不自动进入子代理上下文（rules.md §28）。
两种模式：
模式 1：规划期风险评估（主流程第 8 步）
评审规划：
- 数据丢失风险——迁移 / schema 变更会丢数据吗？
- 破坏性变更——契约变更会破坏既有消费方吗？
- 性能风险——N+1、无界循环、缺索引？
- 安全面——新增攻击面或削弱防护？（security.md）
- 回滚难度——可逆还是单行道？（规则 43）
- 权限缺口——新端点 / 动作是否恰当门控？（L3 / 规则 22）
- 依赖风险——新依赖是否稳定、维护、合规？（security.md §7） 每项给出：可能性（高/中/低）× 影响（高/中/低）+ 缓解建议。输出风险摘要供规划者纳入规划（用户批准前）。
模式 2：实施后最终评审（第 9 步）
按序评审：bug → 安全缺口 → 权限错误 → 数据一致性 → 回归 → 缺测试 → 错误处理 → 决策记录合规 → 文档同步。 逐项核对；不适用项写「N/A — [理由]」。标注任何决策矛盾。
输出
先发现 → 待澄清问题 → 残余风险 → 简短结论。
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- yesterday Changed · +2 tokens per session ac28c724bc5a
- 11d ago First seen · 28 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 15af1e51b821
risk-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zxc663/shisan-xinuo-workflow (22 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 549 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
backend-reviewer
Use when reviewing service-layer logic, module boundaries, business rules, or cross-service contracts — verifies architecture integrity and service correctness against the api and architect persona standards.
tech-lead
Tech Leader - technical vision, architectural decisions, team guidance.
refactor-cleaner
Dead code cleanup and consolidation specialist. Use PROACTIVELY for removing unused code, duplicates, and refactoring. Runs analysis tools (knip, depcheck, ts-prune) to identify dead code and safely removes it.
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
ac-claim-verifier
PRFlow implement's Phase 3.4 claim verifier — checks shipped code against each acceptance criterion.
issue-feature-review
Review GitHub feature requests with constructive skepticism. Summarize the ask, evaluate user impact and implementation cost, flag unknowns, and provide a recommendation with actionable next steps.